Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Crytek Plans Free Version of CryENGINE 3

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the everybody-gets-an-engine dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 75

Develop reports that Crytek, makers of the Far Cry series, the Crysis series, and the game engines behind them, have plans to release a free-to-use version of CryENGINE 3, the software's latest iteration. Quoting: "Unreal vendor Epic Games and Unity have both seen their user-bases mushroom overnight since launching versions of their own engines that, while tied to different royalty rates, are completely free to download and operate. Now the CryEngine 3 group has revealed it wants to tap into this thriving market. The firm's CEO Cevat Yerli told Develop that Crytek already gives away a CryEngine 2 editor to the mod community, but explained that Crytek's expansion strategy stretches beyond. 'We have a very vivid community of users and modders and content creators, and usually that's a great way of unlocking the engine,' he said. ... 'So far that's what we've been offering for free, and it's easy entry into the production environment. [But] we do want to make a standalone free platform that people can run independent of CryEngine that will also be up to speed with the latest engine.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this quality (2, Interesting)

goruka (1721094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828376)

Wonder how long would it take to develop OpenSource engines of this complexity? Why are there none? Ogre and Irrlitch are far, far away...

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828420)

Now I'm just a simple country hyperchicken, but it seems to me that 3d engines tend to age relatively quickly and FOSS tends to be less than cutting edge.
We are talking about Crytek of yes-but-does-it-run-crysis fame.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828614)

They age quickly, yes, but it doesn't really matter much as far as game play, or popularity is concerned. A lot of very popular games still use graphics that will run happily with Dx7 on a GeForce 4.

But for some reason, the free software community has managed to produce more 3d engines than 3d games, and generally these engines are not really that helpful in writing a game anyway.

Putting polys on the screen, writing a scene graph and stuff, really isn't *that* hard. Focus needs to shift from engine making to game making.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828706)

Putting polys on the screen, writing a scene graph and stuff, really isn't *that* hard. Focus needs to shift from engine making to game making.

Yes, but that requires crossing disciplines. Any good coder can make a game engine, but few have talents outside their field; namely the artistic and creative writing abilities.

So you either end up with very simple games or games that never get finished.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829146)

This is where indie developers could step in. Need a cheap engine? You can select from many.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

AttilaSz (707951) | more than 4 years ago | (#31830244)

Best to have a talent for hiring people with abilities you lack.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

Vastad (1299101) | more than 4 years ago | (#31842768)

Wish I had mod points. This is pretty much the key skill for any ambitious dream project in any discipline. You don't have to be a Renaissance Man, you don't need to be a modern day Da Vinci. You just need to find the right people and the ability to make them love you, laugh at your jokes and consider your great idea awesome.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828768)

Even if a game engine is not the most recent one, it doesn't mean the game it runs is crap

-Unreal and UT are still played, Unreal being one of the best games ever IMHO
-Half Life was built upon a modified Quake engine, still one of the best games (second to Unreal)
-Quake 2.
-DS9 The Fallen (based on the Unreal engine)
-Elite Force (based on Q3)

Sure, compared to modern engines, Unreal lacks the lightning, and sound, and textures, and graphics. But it has substance, something that modern stuff lacks, like Hollywood movies...

I ran the original Tie Fighter on a 486/66 with a SB16 card. Now running it on a 5x86@160 with an AWE64 card. Graphics suck, but the MIDI interactive soundtrack is *way* better than listening to looping redbook audio in newer versions (CD)

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (3, Funny)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 4 years ago | (#31832834)

Half Life was built upon a modified Quake engine, still one of the best games (second to Unreal)

Second t... to "Unreal?"

Sir, this indignity will not stand. I demand satisfaction. Headcrabs at 20 paces. Harrumph!

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (3, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829274)

You're misunderstanding that phrase. Whether something ran crysis was a potshot at how badly crysis was coded, not how advanced it was.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (2, Insightful)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31830728)

Thank you. It's ridiculous when several years after its release, a brand new high-end system will still not run this game at 60fps consistently.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31831366)

Mod parent up. Crysis's sole selling point seems to be that some trees are segmentable. Woohoo!

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829742)

We are talking about Crytek of yes-but-does-it-run-crysis fame.

Crysis ran poorly on all but the best machines but I don't think that was because of the crytek engine.

Far Cry used the same engine and would run very nicely on my e4300 and X1650 on 1 gig ram. That same machine didn't meet the basic requirements for Crysis, so it must have been something other than the engine.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (2, Informative)

SpeZek (970136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31830654)

Far Cry used the same engine [as Crysis]

No it didn't. Crysis was Cryengine 2.

Re:Ok.. where's the FarCry engine, then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31834408)

Who cares about newer cryengines unless they can run similar or better graphics on same old hardware FarCry happily used to run smoothly?

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (2, Interesting)

Prune (557140) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828426)

On the other hand, the top state of the art real-time fully dynamic global illumination is implemented _only_ in an open source engine. Paper & free code for the GI solution: http://graphics.cs.williams.edu/papers/PhotonHPG09/ [williams.edu] The engine it's implemented in: http://g3d.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] One cannot say that closed-source leads the pack across the scape of graphical features. Another example besides this level of RT GI is spherical-blend skinning, which was in open source first as well. I'm sure others can point out other advances that come from the open source world.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

MasterEvilAce (792905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828442)

Ogre I believe is strictly graphics (maybe stretching out a bit more than that, but definitely far from a complete engine).. and Irrlitch is definitely not in the same league. Having said that, I'm not sure something like this would show up anytime soon. If a group came together and started working on an open source engine, and actually got to the point of these commercial engines, they'd probably realize their worth and switch to a pay-for model. Sadly a lot of software i've seen has done this. Start out free, get attention, get a user base, then switch to a pay model.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828458)

Because they have enough sense to try to become successful! "Open Source" is a joke.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (2, Insightful)

init100 (915886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828622)

Ogre I believe is strictly graphics (maybe stretching out a bit more than that, but definitely far from a complete engine)

There is a difference between game engines and graphics engines. Ogre is definitely not a complete game engine, but it does not aspire to be one. In my opinion it is a complete graphics engine. Why wouldn't it be?

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829122)

Is it on par with Crytek and Unreal with post processing, shaders, motion blur, anisotropic filtering, AA etc? (Honestly curious, don't know the answer). If so, what's the major difference between a game and a graphics engine?

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (2, Informative)

Carthag (643047) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829252)

what's the major difference between a game and a graphics engine?

A game engine has one or more of the following: physics, AI, a tool chain for content generation, a scripting language or similar for game rules, etc.

A graphics engine only displays the graphics.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31830398)

Is it on par with Crytek and Unreal with post processing, shaders, motion blur, anisotropic filtering, AA etc? (Honestly curious, don't know the answer)

I suggest that you take a look at their feature list [ogre3d.org] and find out. It has many features, many good tutorials, is free software and cross platform (Linux/OpenGL, Windows/Direct3D, Mac OS X/OpenGL).

If so, what's the major difference between a game and a graphics engine?

A graphics engine takes care of rendering graphics, nothing else. It could be something as simple as a 2D sprite library, to a full-featured 3D graphics engine.

But to write games, you need many other parts that are not provided by a pure graphics engine, such as input handling, AI, network access, physics, sound/music, etc, etc. If you combine a graphics engine with one or more such libraries/frameworks and/or tools, you get a game engine.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828482)

Do not confuse the quality of the art with the quality of the engine.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828504)

Wonder how long would it take to develop OpenSource engines of this complexity?
Why are there none?

Probably because it takes a long time and a lot of investment to develop an engine like this. And commercial business models for open source games tend to be problematic.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (3, Insightful)

Xordan (943619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828516)

Making a graphics engine is hard and costs a lot of man hours (thus lots of $$$). There's not many people who can just start contributing to them (compared to other OS projects). The Open Source engines will always be at least a generation behind, simply because they're always going to be slowly implementing what's already been done in the commercial engines, while companies like Crytek are busy working on their next-gen stuff.

On the plus side, the Open Source engines (Ogre and CrystalSpace anyway) are good enough for people to make decent looking games if they wish to do so. Gameplay is what counts right? I'll take TES: Oblivion quality graphics (hell, Morrowind even) if the game play is great. Unfortunately making games is as hard as making the engines that they run on...

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31831118)

A great engine is actually quite doable in Open Source -- it's all about tools and assets. Developers first need to make a choice: use existing formats, or create their own next-gen one. Usually the former wins because they would rather focus on the engine and game than on a map editor and export plugins for model editors. And the existing formats they can pick from are usually a bit older because the current-gen ones aren't always documented.

Then you have trouble of finding people that can make good models and textures -- they tend to be pretty rare and, in my experience, resistant to creating Open Source assets.

Becuase it is hard work (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828640)

Making a top flight game engine takes a lot of effort and talent. It also takes quite focused effort. You have to get the thing developed in fairly short order. Reason being is technology is a moving target. So if you are developing for today's tech, but you don't release for 10 years, you are horribly dated when you come out. Well OSS has two major things that work against that:

1) Lack of organization. OSS projects are like herding cats to an extent. While there may be a central authority that decides what is and is not in the project, they have no ability to force people to work on specific things. So development can run off in non-useful directions or stall or what not. That sort of decentralized, disorganized thing doesn't work so well here. In a commercial environment, you'll do what your boss tells you to. So the things that need working on, get worked on.

2) Lack of commitment. When people are doing something for free it is by definition a hobby. That means they spend as much time as they want on it. Generally, hobby time is somewhat limited, often it is very limited. You can't get people to commit to 40+ hours a week on something they don't get any money for for long stretched of time. However when it is your job, no problem. You get paid, you've got the time to do it.

As such you only see these things when there's a profit motive. Crytek can afford to pay their developers because Electronic Arts pays them for the rights to publish their games and other companies pay them to license their engine for their projects. If they shifted their business model to just releasing their engine for free, well then they'd no longer get any many and be unable to pay for the development.

The only real way you'd see a top flight OSS game engine is if you got a foundation backing it. If some organization said "We are going to hire people to write this and release it for free," then it could happen. However you aren't likely to see it just as a bunch of people working on their own on it.

Re:Becuase it is hard work (1)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828974)

Except most "big" OSS projects have businesses backing them that provide paycheck-motivated developers, which do what boss tell em to do.

Being OSS developer does not have to mean you don't get 40 hour week and apropriate salary or that you don't have pointy hairded boss.

Re:Becuase it is hard work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31829626)

Explain to me, which corporation is going to fund the development of a leading graphics engine? Why would it be in their interests? Corporate harmony? Except by releasing this next-generation engine for free they would be losing business.

Re:Becuase it is hard work (2, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31830360)

Explain to me, which corporation is going to fund the development of a leading database?

Explain to me, which corporation is going to fund the development of a leading web server?

Explain to me, which corporation is going to fund the development of a leading programing language?

Explain to me, which corporation is going to fund the development of a leading OS?

Explain to me, which corporation is going to fund the development of a leading application framework? ...

Um, coproration in business of making money?

They will always win:

Small fry doing few projects and not paying? Their developers are later going to be employed by someone who will pay for extended support.

Big company? Someone will want their asses covered and pay for support to make sure engine problems do not land on their head, and developers will demand suport for bugfixes/new features/training.

Noone is going to fork their project, as long as they work on it and new kids on job market will have skills in their engine because they were able to mess with it.

And there are always some patches from random basement guys that imporve stuff or fix bugs.

Just because they are gonna give out source for free does not mean they can not make money.

Re:Becuase it is hard work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31831406)

More false analogies. Few companies bank on databases, web servers, programming languages, operating systems, or frameworks. These are support infrastructure. Of those that do (Oracle and Microsoft) they lead the world in quality and keep their products proprietary.

So how are graphics engines different? Because graphics are the only reason games sell! You think they are going to open up this wonderful new technology for the whole world? It hasn't been done yet, and it never will be.

Re:Becuase it is hard work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31831602)

I was going to point out that OSS doesn't imply the developers don't get paid, then I saw your last sentence.

The only real way you'd see a top flight OSS game engine is if you got a foundation backing it. If some organization said "We are going to hire people to write this and release it for free," then it could happen

Couldn't agree more.

I've been thinking of going around a few game developers / publishers to try to make this happen. Have you thought deeply about how this might work? Would like to share ideas.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828770)

Because it is not worth it.

You may like it ... but not enough people care.
Just because it is profitable, does not mean it is also useful.

How likely is it that we will see shuttle launch code or software akin to medical devices ?

On the other hand, MS has pored billions into Windows family as well as office,
and it is not as comfortable as it would like to be ...

Not only that but Linux is taking on multiple competitors from mobiles to mainframes at the same time

How so ?

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828872)

By design. Ogre is creeping in fits and starts in the direction of being a game engine, but Irrlicht (if you can't spell it, how much do you know about it?) is explicitly a lightweight 3D engine, targeted at bulk hardware rather than cutting edge gaming systems.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

i ate my neighbour (1756816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829174)

The big dilemma I see in FOSS world is when it comes to games. Projects like Linux or OpenOffice get support from the corporate world because it is profitable to use them for business. By support I mean both cash and workforce. For games, your only market is individuals, who hardly pay unless they are forced to. Lacking a steady income, nobody can organise enough people to work on a game engine. There is the Sauerbraten folk, trying to earn money with their cube2 engine but I do not know how business is going for them. At this point, our only hope becomes someone with money develops and releases their engine with a free licence but they are not likely to do that(Thanks ID, for being kind of an exception).

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829378)

Because there's no business case for it. OSS is not some kind of magic pixie that delivers software for free (although, that would be awesome). It still needs writing. This means that some person or group of people needs to put time and effort into developing it. In general, this happens for one of two reasons:
  • Someone thinks a project would be fun and tries it.
  • Someone benefits from the existence of a piece of software and so funds its creation and development.

Game engines tend not to fall in the latter category. Not many people make money from the existence of a game engine, unlike, for example, an operating system, office suite, or a web server. A number of game studios could, hypothetically, fund development of an open source game engine and then all release proprietary content for it, but then they'd have to compete with other studios who also released content but didn't have to fund the initial development.

The other alternative is more common. Writing game engines is fun (mind you, I think writing compilers is fun, so I might not be the best person to comment on this), but people writing code for fun don't generally devote as much time to it as people who are paid to work on it full time. This means that a proprietary engine gets more developer attention than an open one. There are several good open source FPS engines, but they tend to lag a generation or two behind the latest proprietary engines.

Re:Ok.. now if there were OSS engines of this qual (1)

Yaos (804128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829970)

They would spend a year arguing over what the font on the website should be before getting anything done.

That's a Trick Question - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31838688)

It probably won't happen, at least not in this decade.

1. Most OSS communities don't have the time, the resources, the organization, or the requisite skill to make something that even begins to approach the quality of a commercial program of this size. OSS applications are best kept small and simple, because that's the target project size that fits best with a community of pro bono programmers, most of whom won't actually be authoring the program.

2. OSS communities aren't good at writing new software. They're good at finding bugs and polishing software to a high gloss finish - with enough motivation anyway - but when it comes to actually creating new software, they're passable at best. Most OSS projects are primarily authored by an extremely small fraction of their respective communities, and bug-tested and tweaked by the remainder. This is great when your project falls into the size range that the community can manage, because you wind up with a mediocre program that's been stonewashed, which occasionally makes up for the mediocrity. Larger projects creep along like molasses, or a procession of well-shined turds.

3. Related to the above; With the past decade as my witness: The OSS community can only imitate. They have no ideas of their own. They don't create programs, they reverse engineer or imitate other programs. They don't create interfaces, they copy others. Amusingly enough, now that there's a free version of CryENGINE 3 on the horizon, we just might see an OSS version of it some time around 2030. No, it probably won't work on your operating system, it probably won't compile right for you, and even getting the program to run will require a small phonebook full of hand-typed commands. Maybe by 2030 we'll have exocortical 'frustrated-grunt-to-command-line' interpreters or something to ease that along.

For the vast majority of serious applications and projects, OSS is a joke. Unless a commercial shop develops a comparable engine and then opens it up (like iD Software does from time to time) you're not going to see an OSS game engine with anything resembling the modern amenities. We don't even have 2002-2004's amenities. Cue people who apologize for the OSS clusterfuck by saying that they don't need all those fancy bells and whistles, garbage like Ogre is just fine, commercial software is the devil, and so forth. I don't care.

Indie good. OSS bad. Support game developers who actually have jobs.

Great! (2, Interesting)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828384)

That's great news for indy-gamemakers.. Unreal Engine 3 was already cool, but now also CryEngine3, it's a good day to be a 'modder'.. hehe.. But I wonder what the price will be if you want to sell your game.. Well, at least you've got choices now which suit your financialsituation..

Re:Great! (2, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828492)

Being able to use it for free during development is definitely an advantage. If you only have to pay when you publish a game, that makes the development of games a lot more accessible.

Ding! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828446)

First one to open-source an older version wins!

Re:Ding! (3, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829198)

First one to open-source an older version wins!

Carmack's been winning for a long time, then.

Re:Ding! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31834132)

I was going to say they don't make Quake so I don't care, but I'll consider your comment sufficient :p

The future (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828464)

In the near future, the stabilization of display and physics engines will create a large spike in original game design, as the separation between megaproductions and indie experiments gets thinner.

What I wonder now is: will the gaming world reach this point sooner than the movies? Will indie game designers master the large engines before film making becomes affordable enough to eliminate the dependence on the grand public?

Re:The future (2, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828718)

As an active member of the indie game development community, let me be the first to inform you that indie "original game design" consists largely of "Team Fortress, with Boba Fett", or if you're in the Far East, "Team Fortress, with furries".

Re:The future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828838)

Load of bullshit. Some of the best RPG series for example are indies, like Geneforge and Avernum. Sure the graphics sucks but the world, story, characters beats the crapware from Biowhore and Bethesda.

Re:The future (1)

i ate my neighbour (1756816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829096)

Also there are great original titles like Narbacular Drop(Which evolved into Portal), Cave Story and Spelunky. Much more fun than today's "AAA" action titles(I wish I could say Action/Adventure, there is almost no adventure alive on big market).

Re:The future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31829662)

OP said 'largely' and what you wrote does not contradict him. So you came up with 5 examples. Out of thousands of Tower Defense clones.

Re:The future (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31830930)

First off, if you feel the need to try and contradict someone, have some balls and don't post AC. Second, if you own a Xbox 360, turn it on and look through some of the games offered in the indie section. It will probably take at least two hands to count all the different "massage games."

Re:The future (1)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31833022)

We were talking about 'Original' gameplay... those RPG-series you are referring to can hardly be called 'original gameplay' (not that those games aren't great, maybe they are but I've never even heard of them).. But I also know these days it's very VERY difficult to come up with something really original, most is just a rehash of different genres blended together (or remakes of older games).. Personally I haven't seen an original game in years.. And rogerborg has a good point, most indy games are just rehashes, mostly bad, and sometimes even better as any commercial product (which also is likely to be picked up for release on stuff like Xbox live, or PSN)

Re:The future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31838872)

Not even Jeff Vogel likes those games, and Spiderweb is staffed by nothing but copycats and other indie rejects clinging to the Exile glory days.

At least Exile was a great Ultima clone for its time. Their newer games are crap.

Editor for a game != Game Engine (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828472)

The firm's CEO Cevat Yerli told Develop that Crytek already gives away a CryEngine 2 editor to the mod community

Epic Games has been doing that since Unreal in 1998. So it's not that special. Giving away an editor to mod a game isn't the same as providing a relatively cheap fork of the engine that people can use to create commercial applications, or even free for non-commercial applications.
I wonder what this kind of competition will result in. Will Epic and Crytek shift more towards developing these engine forks, or will they simple keep it as a "small" side project.

Re:Editor for a game != Game Engine (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829696)

Little known fact: UnrealEd was written in Visual Basic 6. Mod this offtopic or something, because it is. I just thought that I would throw that out there.

Re:Editor for a game != Game Engine (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829774)

UnrealEd 1 was VB6. UnrealEd 2 (and later) was all C++.
Unreal shipped with UnrealEd1, and later was replaced by UnrealEd2 (because Epic moved to UnrealEd2). UT had UnrealEd2, UT2003 and UT2004 and UnrealEd3. And UT3 simply came with "UT3 Editor" because the stopped calling it UnrealEd in UnrealEngine3.

Re:Editor for a game != Game Engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31830640)

VB6 was the C# of its day. Everyone knew how to hack something together with it. Yet no one wanted to admit that they did so. C# has a better rep. But it is the same idea redressed in new cloths. You can do just as much in it as VB6. Yet it doesnt have that 'stink' of a crap app with it.

Editors from that time frame were very utilitarian and hacked together with very scizo interfaces. These days they have a bit more polish. As 3rd parties are going to be using them. Also that V1 was whipped up in VB is not surprising. It was sold as a prototyping language. You would build something almost useful with it then rewrite in a 'real' language.

The downside to VB6 was that it was almost too easy to write in. So you ended up with many abominations (just as you can with any language). But for some reason VB6 encouraged bad design decisions.

Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828480)

So does this mean it could be ported to Linux say ?....or could people port whole games to Linux ?...or could they get bits of the engine and develop better linux native engines?

I just think seeing something like Crysis as a linux native app would rock.

I"m not a coder..I dunno...I'm just asking the question.

cheers!

Re:Linux? (1)

i ate my neighbour (1756816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829100)

No, they are just releasing the engine as Free-to-use, not free as in free speech.

The engine battle: (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828534)

Id Software did the open source thing, and now lots of games use the engine.
Unreal never did that, It was midly succesfull.
Unity opened (as in beer) the engine to attract dev's, soon after that Unreal opened his sdk too (almost like in beer, but no).
Seems Crytek (that have a amazing good engine) want to do the same thing: create a population of cheap workers that have experience on his engine.

Theres a formula to make AAA games that is:
Students + Middleware + lots of money = AAA game.
It only make sense if you have very good middleware, and these unskilled labor (the students) already have some experience with these middleware so are somewhat proficient.
These AAA games are generic blockbusters, but since the marketing budget will be also huge, its a "hit" and get your money back, and more. And I don't think everyone can pull a game with this formula.

Re:The engine battle: (-1, Redundant)

megrims (839585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828704)

'AAA', 'successfull', 'midly'. Do you just make up these terms as you go along? :)

Re:The engine battle: (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828856)

Humm.. no. Google for "AAA games". And about all the others, seems gramaticall errors. I make lots of these, sorry :(

Re:The engine battle: (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828760)

Just like music and the other arts, the ability to express ideas using the
tools available increased interest and demand ( this is speculation and conjecture. )
I suspect the owners are thinking free and looking for talent.
It's like a contest, without a defined prize.

Still, I'm going to download it, screw with it and ??? Hell Ya.
 

Re:The engine battle: (3, Informative)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 4 years ago | (#31831362)

Actually, it feels like I'm seeing far more games running on the Unreal engine these days than I am on anything id have put out. Gears of War games, Mass Effect games, Bioshock games, loads of stuff from Square-Enix, god knows how many others... they're all on the Unreal 3 engine. By contrast, the only vaguely recent game I can remember on an id engine was Wolfenstein. And frankly, that looked pretty mediocre compared to the competition.

In fact, yes, looking at the "list of games that use this engine" on wikipedia, it's fairly clear that the Unreal Engine 3 is being used for a huge number of commercial games, while id's engines are starting to look distinctly niche and only seem to be used by developers with strong historic links to id.

Re:The engine battle: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31831982)

Id Software did the open source thing, and now lots of games use the engine.

Oh come on, was it really that simple? If games are sold using the Id open source engine they pay royalties.

Vivid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828598)

Vivid? Does he mean avid?

For free, huh? (0, Redundant)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828630)

Speech or beer? I do hope it's speech...

Re:For free, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828728)

HelsinkiSyndrome(TM) [tmrepository.com]

Useless on iPhone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828714)

Too bad it cant be used on the iPhone, due to the new draconian restrictions invented by the dark lord Sauron

Re:Useless on iPhone (1)

i ate my neighbour (1756816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829130)

I don't think they have a version for iPhone anyway.

CryENGINE 3, now available! (5, Funny)

billsayswow (1681722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31828818)

Yes, that means you, Mr. Indie Game Developer, can make your own Running Through Well-Rendered Trees simulators, and even skip the monotonous shooting parts that Crytek seems to stick in between your times of admiring the trees!

Re:CryENGINE 3, now available! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31837446)

Dude. You could have an EXTREME MAPLE SYRUP simulator.

You run around checking your taps and gathering buckets of sap. Then you cook it down.

If you win, you get pancakes.

Re:CryENGINE 3, now available! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31839710)

This was modded interesting.

Not funny. Interesting.

what is this I don't even

Re:CryENGINE 3, now available! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31840232)

Sounds like an episode of "The Adventures of Flapjack" that I watched...

They had to hug the trees to make them warm enough for the sap to flow.

And then the syrup king betrayed them, but Flapjack's pancakes became sentient, ate the king, crowned himself, and let Flapjack (and Cap'n Kernuckles) go.

Good episode!

Noooooesssss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31828888)

Say it ain't so Joe!

You could have been a contender!

natalieglebova (-1, Redundant)

natalieglebova (1788938) | more than 4 years ago | (#31829152)

I don't think so much Yoga [squidoo.com]

Open vs. proprietary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31830438)

Blender has a decent engine in there, though admittedly the main attractions there are different than what Cry / UE and to some extent Unity's focus on:

- Fast prototyping, modular logic.
- Toolchain taken care of (stay in the same app for everything).
- Open source.

Unity is arguably as good on the first point, has a wider scripting language choice, and has play-in-browser functionality on top. Add in the fact that it plays very nicely with Blender, that means that there's a free toolchain as least as good as Blender's.

But if you're adamant about using an OSS engine, Blender, or Panda, are viable choices with "easy" scripting support. If you don't mind compiling, there's also CrystalSpace, Irrlicht, Cube, and many Quake-derivatives to choose from, such as DarkPlaces. Frankly, if your open game project is pushing what you can do with Blender graphically and gameplay-wise, it's one of the rare ones that actually has the talent times manpower to make a decent game. In the case of the commercial engines, you run into a steep wall of required assets to actually utilise the graphical edge they have on the open choices.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?